Brady v. McCann

Sixth Circuit

Brady v. McCann

8 F.2d 928, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3399

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedNovember 9, 1925

DocketNos. 4375, 4376, 10007

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 8 F.2d 928 (Brady v. McCann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brady v. McCann, 8 F.2d 928, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3399 (6th Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

From these agreed statements of facts it clearly appears that each of these claimants, while clothed with some discretion in the performance of his respective duties, nevertheless occupied a subordinate position and was under the control and direction of tho general manager. For this reason wo think the services perfoi*mod by each of these claimants comes clearly within the provisions of section 64b (4) of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. § 9648), and, nothing else appearing, they would each he entitled to priority in tho sum of $300 for salary and wages earned within the three months next preceding tho filing of the petition in bankruptcy. Brainerd v. Irwin et al. (C. C. A.) 291 F. 759, 761; Blessing v. Blanchard et al., 223 F. 35, 37, 138 C. C. A. 399, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 341; In re Dexter, 158 F. 788, 89 C. C. A. 285.

Nor do we think that the mere fact that these men wore stockholders and directors of the bankrupt corporation is a sufficient reason to deny them priority for wages actually earned by them in these subordinate positions wholly separate and apart from their duties as directors for [930]*930which they received no compensation. In re Cost Cut Counterbore Co. (D. C.) 283 F. 670; In re Capital Paint Co. (D. C.) 239 F. 424; In re Eagle Ice & Coal Co. (D. C.) 241 F. 393; In re H. O. Roberts Co. (D. C.) 193 F. 294.

Under the provisions of section 24b of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. § 9608), an order of the District Court based on an agreed statement of facts may be reviewed by petition to revise. Brainard v. Irwin, supra.

For this.reason the appeal is dismissed, and upon the petition to revise the order and decree of the District Court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

From these agreed statements of facts it clearly appears that each of these claimants, while clothed with some discretion in the performance of his respective duties, nevertheless occupied a subordinate position and was under the control and direction of tho general manager. For this reason wo think the services perfoi*mod by each of these claimants comes clearly within the provisions of section 64b (4) of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. § 9648), and, nothing else appearing, they would each he entitled to priority in tho sum of $300 for salary and wages earned within the three months next preceding tho filing of the petition in bankruptcy. Brainerd v. Irwin et al. (C. C. A.) 291 F. 759, 761; Blessing v. Blanchard et al., 223 F. 35, 37, 138 C. C. A. 399, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 341; In re Dexter, 158 F. 788, 89 C. C. A. 285.

Nor do we think that the mere fact that these men wore stockholders and directors of the bankrupt corporation is a sufficient reason to deny them priority for wages actually earned by them in these subordinate positions wholly separate and apart from their duties as directors for [930]*930which they received no compensation. In re Cost Cut Counterbore Co. (D. C.) 283 F. 670; In re Capital Paint Co. (D. C.) 239 F. 424; In re Eagle Ice & Coal Co. (D. C.) 241 F. 393; In re H. O. Roberts Co. (D. C.) 193 F. 294.

Under the provisions of section 24b of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. § 9608), an order of the District Court based on an agreed statement of facts may be reviewed by petition to revise. Brainard v. Irwin, supra.

For this.reason the appeal is dismissed, and upon the petition to revise the order and decree of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 F.2d 928, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brady-v-mccann-ca6-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack